Is it though? That’s a wee bit like saying that an invention that can instantly heal bruises is a step towards ending spousal abuse isn’t it? Don’t get me wrong- great technology, good on them for developing something to help folks breath cleaner air- but there are financial and environmental costs to things we often don’t see until far down the road. Sure- we can come up with bandaids for those and an and on so long as we have the resources and know how to keep going- but at a certain point we aren’t “saving the environment” but just replacing nature with a man made life support system which aren’t the same thing.
16
deleted
· 5 years ago
You're right, all I'm saying is, this is a step in the right direction, but we have a seriously long way to go before the environment is saved
It seems to work out well for those most invested in technology financially or in life. I’m not saying we should go back to the Stone Age or anything- but the reality is that bio diversity on earth is complex and interlinked. Everyone worries about the bees and pollination. If we make nano bits or whatever to do that job- we don’t need bees. But there are predators and parasites and more that do rely on bees. So then they adapt or die and so to do those creatures that have adapted to rely on them, and inevitably there is some aspect of nature that relies on one or more of these creatures too- so we have to replace that.. and so on.
I think before people disparage the efficiency, they need to consider that even a small step in the right direction is better than no step. In America we're making a strong push towards electrics and hybrids. In the 70s, the answer to cars burning too much gas was to add parts that made them burn less gas. Before that? No one gave a shit. By taking this effort to make this tower, you can actually inspire people and make them take the first step toward changing: giving a shit.
Perhaps. But.... there is much debate as to wether hybrid or electric cars are any more “clean,” or if they just send the damage to some place we don’t care about... until the effects reach us. There’s even debate that a mass switch could be more devastating to the environment than not developing them at all. Then there is the fact that more efficient more reliable vehicles tend to cost less to drive- which tends to make people drive more and allow more people to drive who wouldn’t otherwise. The largely fossil fuel based grid powering those cars is still polluting just the same as if the cars themselves were, and consumables like lubricants and tires, etc. increase in consumption with more miles traveled by more vehicles. So sometimes ill conceived actions with the best intentions are just as bad or worse than doing nothing.
Read more here: weforum . org/agenda/2018/02/china-has-built-the-world-s-largest-air-purifier-to-battle-smog/
Which is BAD